Geocentrism

[zone]

"An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.

Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the center of a large underdensity is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…"


- “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302.with citation from A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian in Physical Letters B345, 203 (1995) and S. Alexander, T. Biswas and A. Notari at [arXiv:0712.0370]; and H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui and Ø. Grøn in Physical Review D73, 083519 (2006); and J. Garcia‐Dellido & T. Jaugboelle in Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 04, 003 (2008).

 

[spacefreak]

Hi Ken
as promised, here's a thread considering a Stationary Earth: a Geocentric Model of the Universe.

i'll say right up front, i am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

but i have considered this model of the universe, following the scholarly debate between the Geocentric and Heliocentric models as best i am able.

i know that both are theories. Helicentrism is no more proven than Geocentrism.

stats say 20+% of Westerners believe in the Geocentric Model; 33% of Russians; and the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe in Geo. this in itself doesn't prove anything other than Geo is not new, nor unknown...in reality, Heliocentrism as a scientific theory is the new kid on the block - sun worship (sun is center of all things) obviously is not new.

what i am wondering is, is there anything which absolutely rules out (makes impossible) a Stationary Earth?

as a Christian man who is skilled in math and science, Ken, does the Geocentric Model actually align more precisely with God's Word than a Heliocentric view does?

(i repeat, i am not qualified to debate anyone on this issue, only to present and consider what is presented by others who are qualified).

love zone.

~

Stationary Earth

Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

we already can tell that that we orbit the sun and that we on the earth are mobile,read astronomy books

 

[damsel-f1sh]

i know that both are theories. Helicentrism is no more proven than Geocentrism.

This is often a source of confusion outside of the scientific community because of the difference in how we define "theory" in a colloquial setting and an academic setting.

In common speech: Theory~ a speculative explanation

But in Science: Theory~ a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theories can have differing amounts of evidence backing them up. Geocentrism has very little evidence supporting it compared to Heliocentrism. Science is not in the business of proving things. Rather, scientists collect information to see if their observations disprove the reigning theory.

what i am wondering is, is there anything which absolutely rules out (makes impossible) a Stationary Earth?

One of the observations that first called Geocentrism into question was the movements of the planets. Most planets move across the sky in a constant, mono-directional course. Mars does not. Mars shows what is called a retrograde motion, where it actually appears to start moving in the opposite direction of its normal course. (There's a lot of free astrological data online that you can check out if you don't believe me.) If the universe followed the Geocentric model, the Laws of Physics would make it impossible for an object to change its direction without having been acted upon by an outside force.

The Heliocentric Elliptical model fixes this problem, by showing that the retrograde motion cycle matches up with the relative orbits of Mars and the Earth. During the retrograde motion, the Earth is passing Mars, making Mars appear to move backwards across our sky.

There are additional proofs based on Newtonian Physics that came about later in history, but above is the original evidence against the Geocentric model.

The stars do not show parallax (crossing over each other) because they are too far away.

The North Star doesn't appear to move because it's right smack in the center of Earth's Northern Celestial Pole, which is determined by the tilt of Earth's axis.

 

[creationist74]

Hello zone,

the observations of the planets are clearer if you take the heliocentric model and not the geocentric one. The heliocentric model does not contradict Joshua 10:10. It is just a point of view as the earth stood still for one day.

Here is one article on creation.com on this topic.

Geocentrism and Creation

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is often a source of confusion outside of the scientific community because of the difference in how we define "theory" in a colloquial setting and an academic setting.

In common speech: Theory~ a speculative explanation

But in Science: Theory~ a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theories can have differing amounts of evidence backing them up. Geocentrism has very little evidence supporting it compared to Heliocentrism. Science is not in the business of proving things. Rather, scientists collect information to see if their observations disprove the reigning theory.



One of the observations that first called Geocentrism into question was the movements of the planets. Most planets move across the sky in a constant, mono-directional course. Mars does not. Mars shows what is called a retrograde motion, where it actually appears to start moving in the opposite direction of its normal course. (There's a lot of free astrological data online that you can check out if you don't believe me.) If the universe followed the Geocentric model, the Laws of Physics would make it impossible for an object to change its direction without having been acted upon by an outside force.

The Heliocentric Elliptical model fixes this problem, by showing that the retrograde motion cycle matches up with the relative orbits of Mars and the Earth. During the retrograde motion, the Earth is passing Mars, making Mars appear to move backwards across our sky.

There are additional proofs based on Newtonian Physics that came about later in history, but above is the original evidence against the Geocentric model.

The stars do not show parallax (crossing over each other) because they are too far away.

The North Star doesn't appear to move because it's right smack in the center of Earth's Northern Celestial Pole, which is determined by the tilt of Earth's axis.

You're referring to the more archaic Ptolemaic Geocentric model (with epicycles, etc.) for your comparison to the Helio model as being (allegedly) superior in resolving certain anomalies. The appropriate Geocentric model is the Neo-Tychonic with Keplerian orbits.

At best, it's a coin-flip. (And even a coin-flip is marginally favorable to heads because the coin imprintation process means a miniscule greater material weight is leveraged to that side of the coin.) Either is viable, and so far neither has been appropriately determined through any substantial means of empiricism beyond preferred and speculative opinion by influence and bias.

I'll take Geo, hands down. You guys can all side with the sun-worshippers and their coercive equivocation and manipulative obfuscation of the facts. But I hate ancient religion masquerading as "secular" Science to undermine the "sacred". I don't do Kabbalah.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is often a source of confusion outside of the scientific community because of the difference in how we define "theory" in a colloquial setting and an academic setting.

In common speech: Theory~ a speculative explanation

But in Science: Theory~ a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theories can have differing amounts of evidence backing them up. Geocentrism has very little evidence supporting it compared to Heliocentrism. Science is not in the business of proving things. Rather, scientists collect information to see if their observations disprove the reigning theory.



One of the observations that first called Geocentrism into question was the movements of the planets. Most planets move across the sky in a constant, mono-directional course. Mars does not. Mars shows what is called a retrograde motion, where it actually appears to start moving in the opposite direction of its normal course. (There's a lot of free astrological data online that you can check out if you don't believe me.) If the universe followed the Geocentric model, the Laws of Physics would make it impossible for an object to change its direction without having been acted upon by an outside force.

The Heliocentric Elliptical model fixes this problem, by showing that the retrograde motion cycle matches up with the relative orbits of Mars and the Earth. During the retrograde motion, the Earth is passing Mars, making Mars appear to move backwards across our sky.

There are additional proofs based on Newtonian Physics that came about later in history, but above is the original evidence against the Geocentric model.

The stars do not show parallax (crossing over each other) because they are too far away.

The North Star doesn't appear to move because it's right smack in the center of Earth's Northern Celestial Pole, which is determined by the tilt of Earth's axis.

As opposed to the Ptolemaic Geo model, a Neo- version of the later Tychonic model is the basis for modern considerations of a Geocentric model. In a Neo-Tychonic model, the sun and moon orbit the earth, but all the other planets orbit the sun; and all the orbits are Keplerian (elliptical).

When the compensating revolution of the luminiferous ether (the 10/93rd power Planck-density fabric of space) is taken into account (which "carries" the entirety of the stars, etc.), the kinematics are observably identical (at least the majority inter-relative kinematics of our system with the remainder of the celestial expanse.)

 

[zone]

You're referring to the more archaic Ptolemaic Geocentric model (with epicycles, etc.) for your comparison to the Helio model as being (allegedly) superior in resolving certain anomalies. The appropriate Geocentric model is the Neo-Tychonic with Keplerian orbits.

At best, it's a coin-flip. (And even a coin-flip is marginally favorable to heads because the coin imprintation process means a miniscule greater material weight is leveraged to that side of the coin.) Either is viable, and so far neither has been appropriately determined through any substantial means of empiricism beyond preferred and speculative opinion by influence and bias.

I'll take Geo, hands down. You guys can all side with the sun-worshippers and their coercive equivocation and manipulative obfuscation of the facts. But I hate ancient religion masquerading as "secular" Science to undermine the "sacred". I don't do Kabbalah.

pps.....long time no see.
will you forgive me?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

pps.....long time no see.
will you forgive me?

Yes, of course. <3

 

[zone]

Yes, of course. <3

thank you.
i was very wrong to speak to you the way i did, even if we disagreed
i repented.
but i never apologized to you.
nice to see you again.

lets put this occult junk to bed.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

thank you.
i was very wrong to speak to you the way i did, even if we disagreed
i repented.
but i never apologized to you.
nice to see you again.

lets put this occult junk to bed.

Indeed. And I've spent many months focusing on reconciliation as the means of subtly correcting Theology Proper instead of adversarial conflict.

Isn't it amazing how embedded the unconfirmed foundations of Kabbalistic pseudo-Science are? The whole thing is an inversion of truth. The impersonal divine energy shattered all immanent creation into existence; and chaos found order all by itself, with the sparks of big bang-shattered divinity all seeking to be rejoined in the aggregate (like water seeking its own level) over billions of years. And then resulting in the primordial abiogenetic emergence of life culminating in the ultimate evolution to/of man, and eventually beyond bodily constraints by man's OWN self-creative logos to ascend to become/reclaim divinity and personalize it for everlasting.

What a monumental and absurd script-flip of God's OWN Logos creating all decently and in order, then disarranged by sin onset and redeemed by the great love wherewith He hath loved us; our ultimate destiny to be joint-heirs and partakers OF His divine nature through adoption and in subjection to Him for everlasting.

Ye shall be as gods... ummm.... Not so much. And all the Euclidian, Copernican, Darwinian, Marxian, Freudian, Einsteinian, and Saganian eras just accelerated it all to the drivel we have now that underlies the many legitimate areas of "hard" sciences that stand alone and mask the foundational perversion. If possible, even the very elect would be deceived.

Me no likey leaven. I'll eat the body of my Savior in true communion instead.

 

[zone]

Indeed. And I've spent many months focusing on reconciliation as the means of subtly correcting Theology Proper instead of adversarial conflict.

Isn't it amazing how embedded the unconfirmed foundations of Kabbalistic pseudo-Science are? The whole thing is an inversion of truth. The impersonal divine energy shattered all immanent creation into existence; and chaos found order all by itself, with the sparks of big bang-shattered divinity all seeking to be rejoined in the aggregate (like water seeking its own level) over billions of years. And then resulting in the primordial abiogenetic emergence of life culminating in the ultimate evolution to/of man, and eventually beyond bodily constraints by man's OWN self-creative logos to ascend to become/reclaim divinity and personalize it for everlasting.

What a monumental and absurd script-flip of God's OWN Logos creating all decently and in order, then disarranged by sin onset and redeemed by the great love wherewith He hath loved us; our ultimate destiny to be joint-heirs and partakers OF His divine nature through adoption and in subjection to Him for everlasting.

Ye shall be as gods... ummm.... Not so much. And all the Euclidian, Copernican, Darwinian, Marxian, Freudian, Einsteinian, and Saganian eras just accelerated it all to the drivel we have now that underlies the many areas of legitimate areas of "hard" sciences that stand alone and mask the foundational perversion. If possible, even the very elect would be deceived.

Me no likey leaven. I'll eat the body of my Savior in true communion instead.

'parently NOBODY believed Jesus about the leaven.

oh...look here....look there...but NEVER look at the obvious.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

'parently NOBODY believed Jesus about the leaven.

oh...look here....look there...but NEVER look at the obvious.

I don't know how hooked in you are to all the garbage going on in the US, but it's HERE. I could do a day seminar on all that's happened just since the re-relection last November. And the sheeple are still unaware, clinging to their precious Dispensational false hope of a secret sky escape from persecution, and favoritism for non-Semitic "Israel", ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Without Helio, NONE of it was tenable. BTW... Now they've found that the inflation model of the big bang is invalid.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain

"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics.

The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based.

The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption

The Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah teach about a very dynamic and controversial (even dialectical in almost Schellingian sense of this word) process of self explication and self construction of the Absolute (as well as His liberation from even the shadow of the roots of evil) which as the process of tikkun (Restoration, or Universal Correction) unfolds the unlimited richness of His contents in the system of Personalities, or Hypostases (Partzufim). Therefore, the World of Restoration ('Olam Tikkun) is not equal (but is not different as well) to the world of 'Or En-Sof (Ultimateless Light, or Absolute) of the beginning. Tikkun 'Olam is of the same nature as 'Or En-Sof but it is not simplicity and potentiality but concrete unity of differences and actuality. And the process of Tikkun is called "the repairing of the God's Face" because it corrects the existential break, or gap in the Absolute Being as such which is also a moment in His unfolding.

Tikkun - The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption < click

Classic Kabbalah defines En-Sof, the "No-Thing," as "Formlessness" and "Perfect Unity," the Monad of Gnosticism, Tao of Taoism, Brahaman of Vedanta, Buddha-Nature of Buddhism, etc. It is likened to a "Cloud" or "Vapor" filling and filled by -- which is to say, coextensive with -- the entire universe. At a certain moment, according to Luria, this En-Sof determines to Create; but since it is everywhere and everything no room exists within itself for anything else except itself. Consequently, Luria says, En-Sof "contracted into and away from itself" to make a primeaval space within which to enact the event of creation. This he called the "TzimTzum." (We shall see later in our discussion that modern astrophysics uses almost precisely the same metaphors to describe the Big Bang of creation.)

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

If professing Christians truly comprehended just THIS much of what has happened, by whom, and for what purposes; there would be an uprising to overthrow the entire Scientific community in a single day. Instead, many have gradually accepted some diluted form of it in some manner as promoted WITHIN the faith through the Word of Faith movement. It seems innocuous enough on the surface, and even legitimate; but "speaking things to be" is merely man utilizing his delegated logos (logic and its outward expression of rhema) capacity to further his alleged ascension to divinity.

We've already seen the face (prosopon = person/face/presence/personal appearance) of God. His name is Jesus Christ the righteous, MY God and Savior. So this hybridization within the faith is despicable and should be recognized for what it is... Tikkun over Christology. Ancient mystical occultic "sacred" versus the truly sacred of God made flesh and dwelt among us. In any case, it sure ain't "secular". The atheistic and scientism proponents have promoted idolatry with veiled Tikkun in the foundations of Science.

Wakey, wakey, sheeple. The (non-Semitic) Zionist plot is coming to fruition; and it's engulfing whole portions of church teachings by which it has permeated the chambers of the bride of Christ herself.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain

"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click


the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics.

The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based.

The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption

The Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah teach about a very dynamic and controversial (even dialectical in almost Schellingian sense of this word) process of self explication and self construction of the Absolute (as well as His liberation from even the shadow of the roots of evil) which as the process of tikkun (Restoration, or Universal Correction) unfolds the unlimited richness of His contents in the system of Personalities, or Hypostases (Partzufim). Therefore, the World of Restoration ('Olam Tikkun) is not equal (but is not different as well) to the world of 'Or En-Sof (Ultimateless Light, or Absolute) of the beginning. Tikkun 'Olam is of the same nature as 'Or En-Sof but it is not simplicity and potentiality but concrete unity of differences and actuality. And the process of Tikkun is called "the repairing of the God's Face" because it corrects the existential break, or gap in the Absolute Being as such which is also a moment in His unfolding.

Tikkun - The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption < click

I've done almost no formal writing on this, since my interest has been mostly limited to analysis of the pre-Flood rainmaking machines, and their theory. But here's my theory, in three stages. I have not thought about this in like 10 years now.

Start with an "intrinsic prophetic" model, which I learned indirectly from ancient Egypt. The original Pangea continent, the human body, the stars, and the flow of time, are all aspects of the same whole. God's personality projects in various ways creating them, but they are all shadows of one Him. Thus, everything is dependent on everything, and one can determine the relationships between stars, continents (future history of nations), and God by using the body as a model. For example, Israel is the heart of the world, Egypt the belly, head faces east. Simply draw the body over the Pangea continent, and each country's destiny (and the personality characteristics of its inhabitants) is determined. The stars over each part of the world then proclaim the cycles of God's grace (like the angels of the 7 churches in Revelation). The apparent celestial and earth movements movements are simply the working out of God's plan one cycle at a time. So everything is predetermined, except for man's sin, that is constantly gumming up the works and causing "corrections" to occur. The model is Egyptian, but heavily influences Hebrew thought.

I need some observations from math: God's world is obviously infinite dimensional. Because of sin interfering with full understanding, we limit our perception to what we can handle. The number of dimensions is controlled by two limiting factors: It is impossible to create a thinking being with a body of less than three dimensions; the nervous and digestive systems need to cross each other without intersecting. This fact was known 400 years ago. In 1991, mathematicians proved that it is impossible for an object of other than dimension 4 to self-transform into its opposite without self-destruction. Since the mind must repent to be saved, the mind must be four dimensional. Those two facts control the number of dimensions used for human life, and give us Einstein's universe.

Now here is some work I did uniting Genesis and Tesla's theory of ether. We have in mathematics the concept of "adjoint space", or the space of determiners of position and movement in regular space. If space as we know it, is comprlsed of matter, then the movements of matter constitute a space of their own. The movements affect the matter and vice-versa. Using a four dimensional time-space universe, creates four more dimensions to model the movements that we perceive as change. This model is mathematically almost a precursor of most current cosmological theories because of the mathematical basis. But, watch what happens Scripturally: The four dimensions of movement answer well to the spiritual world, as spirit motivates bodily change, and sin interferes with receiving communication from the Holy Spirit, showing that the spiritual dimensions are dependent on body, as space and adjoint space must be. The seven 'stacked" heavens of the Hebrews can be said to exist in the four spirit dimensions, while the four matter dimensions have the universe as we see it, without contradiction (this part takes some modeling to prove). Thus, all the Bible statements are true spiritually, whereas modern astronomy describes the physical universe. One more dimension is needed to allow for "tanninim". This fifth day creation is not whales (as is translated in Genesis), or serpents (as translated in Pharoah's palace), but is the connecting threads of purpose God put into everything (taking "tanninim" as "tennu" as an loanword from Egyptian). Water in the four physical dimensions, is Tesla's ether in the four adjoint dimensions. With 9 dimensions you now can resort your perceptions to have 3 universes of 3 dimensions each, corresponding to physical, soul, and spiritual, each of which with capabilities of motion, such as our three dimensional world has. You thus get a consistent model for physical, witchcraft soul-power, and God's world of prophetic purpose, and all interlock.

I like such models, because God is in charge of every piece, except sin. The Word of God can be what the Jews say it is, the blueprint of the universe. Prophets and miracles occur according to well developed physical laws (they are God's intention anyway, and preprogrammed to occur when God wants them). The mathematics gives results consistent with current theories of cosmology.

So basically what I believe, is God gave us everything. Sin caused us to be blinded to most of it. We perceive ourselves as three dimensional, with time as a fourth, which causes us to limit what God can give us to 9 dimensions as described. "Motion" and especially "rotation" enter reality as byproducts of our choice as a special case. So all our theories are nothing but us reflecting on what our sin has not interfered with us seeing of all the goodness god originally showed Adam and Eve. The resurgence of theory is due to glimpses into what sin has blocked, occasionally opened by grace.

I'm not sure how easy this will be to understand. I was just going to go to bed when I saw this post. I'll clarify whatever I can when I am more awake.

Pliny also tells us that gravity is heaven pushing things away. That's a special case of the theory I am outlining.

There's one thing represented here that aligns with my intentions of exposing the errors of Theology Proper and how they ALL misrepresent God and prevent any real comprehension of Cosmogony and Cosmology, etc.

God...Created...ALL!!! In His inherent self-subsistence/self-existence as I AM, God didn't just create the terrestrial realm of the natural universe. God created the celestial realm of eternity as heaven. Eternity had an inception at the Divine Utterance, just as the temporal natural universe did. Same Logos and Pneuma. But God INhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). It was active. God didn't passively habitate in some "eternal state" that IS heaven/eternity; God created it. And it is His own duration, perpetuity, and foregoing eternality that gives the created heavenly realm of eternity all its properties of existence, just as all the temporal creation is sustained and upheld by Him and the rhema of His power. By Him, ALL things consist and having their being/existence. This includes the eternal realm of heaven.

THAT's why I'm so adamant that Theology Proper MUST be reformulated to encompass this truth. All existing formulated theological constructs of God's constitution share the same central omissions of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Each renders God as too impotent to have created BOTH the eternal realm and the temporal realm. There's a demarcation at the creation of eternity/heaven that is absent in ALL historical God-models, and they must all be reconciled to the central truth of scripture. What we have now is competing aspects that attempt to compensate for essentially being some elevated form of PanEntheism with God comprising heaven itself; OR of God being inferior to and somehow subordinately contained and constrained by an UNcreated heaven of eternity.

God is not subject to the constraints of heaven and eternity. God, in His own eternal and uncreated self-existence is utterly transcendent to ALL creation, including that of the heavenly realm of/as eternity. Before the creative Divinine Utterance, there was only God (and His Logos and/as Pneuma). No heaven. No eternity. No nothing else. God ALONE is uncreated. ALL else is created.

That's the kick in the teeth for Kabbalah (and all modern Scientism). The foundational premise in Kabbalah is that the impersonal divine content was "everywhere" and there was no room for "anything else", so it was shattered outward into the creation of the natural universe as another realm of "self-created" existence that would ultimately take on all the divine properties of the "higher" realm that errupted and exploded itself into the "lower" realm temporarily, but to reclaim that divinity and give it the collective personality of the aggregate of those in mankind who will reclaimed those sparks of divinity and retain/attain deity.

But the "everywhere" for the initial divinity is a miasma of alleged uncreatedness with no source of origin. The one true and living God YHWH is beyond ALL of that. He alone is uncreated. Nothing else can portray true and fundamental uncreatedness. For the Kabbalah divinity, it was "everywhere". "Wheres" are all spatial orientations for/of "whats", generally depicting punctiliar "whens"; all of which is time-space-matter, whatever plane of existence is being represented.

God created ALL "whens", "wheres", "whats" of time-space-matter, including those in an eternal realm. Eternity is not self-existent and self-subsistent. ONLY the I AM is. Eternity was created when/as He inhabited it at the Divine Utterance. And THAT's why all the historial God-models, including Trinity doctrine, are ALL insufficient and resign God to a created heavenly realm for His innate existence. That's not much of a God, no matter how it's formulated in a doctrine.

So... there's no "everywhere" prior to creation, regardless of which religion is attempting to reflect or deflect truth of Cosmogony and resulting Cosmology. And even the Christian formulations of doctrine haven't accounted for God's nature and constitution and inherent all-surpassing divinity, except with pitiful band-aids of alleged theological constructs.

Until others can see the truth, it's hard for them to see the lies and the counterfeits. You certainly seem to have a leg up on virtually everyone else I've known in regards to this genre of knowledge. I'll follow your posts with interest.

 

[zone]

I don't know how hooked in you are to all the garbage going on in the US, but it's HERE. I could do a day seminar on all that's happened just since the re-relection last November. And the sheeple are still unaware, clinging to their precious Dispensational false hope of a secret sky escape from persecution, and favoritism for non-Semitic "Israel", ad infinitum ad nauseum.

lol....reasonably hooked in.
it's unbelievable.

after the Boston False Flag i had to start my own thread to avoid being tarred and feathered as an antisemitic-antinomian-amillennial-nazi-skinhead-proislam-paranoid-conspiracy-theorist-cessationist-whatchamacallitist.

and it still came in....lol.

http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/62382-yinon-plan-al-qaeda-other-plans.html < click

help me out over here if ya want.

i really truly grieve for America though.
the assaults have been relentless.
just continual erosion of every portion of her foundation.
and it's a wrap i'm afraid.

while all that was going down in Boston Obama's siggy on the updated NDAA torched the tattered remnant of Posse Comitatus.
gone. forever.

and the people cheered!
as they stood in their bathrobes with their hands in the air.

(see excerpt from short video i'm about to post on the Yinon thread...so far that thread is reasonably unscathed by Pavlov's peeps)

Without Helio, NONE of it was tenable. BTW... Now they've found that the inflation model of the big bang is invalid.

ya the assault was on every inch of everything though.
through "academia" - LOL!
Enlightenment alright...ya sure.

Helio, when (not if) undone and exposed, will help crash the whole mess of lies.
if only people could see it.

i have Doc to thank for all of that.
gonna post a few more awesome things he's got, today if i get a chance.
haveta do some chores today and the rheumatiz doesn't like it.

(still need firewood here! - GLOBAL WARMING - the carbon-credit scamma-ramma inconvenient goof-up.....oh ya....i can do time for Global Warming denial - haha)

 

[zone]

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young."

- Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937.

 

[zone]

"Astronomers will find it hard to settle that troubling sensation in the pit of their stomachs. The truth is that when it comes to swallowing uncomfortable ideas, dark energy may turn out to be a sugar-coated doughnut compared to a rejection of the Copernican principle.”

- “Dark Energy and the Bitterest Pill,” July 14, 2008 at the Physics arXiv blog.

 

[zone]

reposted:



"An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.

Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the center of a large underdensity is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…"

- “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302.with citation from A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian in Physical Letters B345, 203 (1995) and S. Alexander, T. Biswas and A. Notari at [arXiv:0712.0370]; and H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui and Ø. Grøn in Physical Review D73, 083519 (2006); and J. Garcia‐Dellido & T. Jaugboelle in Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 04, 003 (2008).

 

[zone]

a-a-a-a-and.......the coming death knell for the kabbalists' 'theory'


Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013

The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflation models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results.

In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm.

Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.

Cornell University Library

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

a-a-a-a-and.......the coming death knell for the kabbalists' 'theory'Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflation models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.Cornell University Library

Yeah, and the powers that be are MichaelJ-moonwalkin' and break-dancin' to supress it and get it buried. Ain't happenin', methinks. Inflation = toast. They'll just attempt to hybridize it closer to creationist Cosmogony for more deception, but we have a window of opportunity, so to speak.